Why Romney Lost

In his latest book, Collision 2012, Dan Balz, a Washington Post writer, expresses his incredulity over “the inability” of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to “humanize” its candidate.

This is one reason why, in Balz’s estimation, Romney lost the 2012 election to Barack Obama.

Yet there are two other reasons that he supplies to account for Romney’s defeat. The one pertains to the “technically superior” character of his rival’s campaign. The other is in regard to Romney’s “ambivalence” concerning his bid for the presidency.

The first thing that should be noted is that if Romney’s consultants had difficulty in “humanizing” their man, it’s because those at places like the Washington Post were more determined to see to it that he was dehumanized. This, after all, is exactly what their man, Obama, wanted.

Second, as far as technical finesse goes, if there were differences between the campaigns, they were negligible: Obama was more successful in conveying his message because of the ubiquitous and overwhelming media bias that sought to dehumanize his opponent.

As for Blaz’s third contention, it is superfluous to note Romney’s “ambivalence” toward his political fate, for Romney is a Republican and Republicans, as a rule, can be counted upon to act as if they are ambivalent toward the political fate of their party. However, of the three reasons that Blaz submits for Romney’s misfortunes, this is the only one that takes.

It is not, as many “conservative” media personalities insist, that Romney is a “RINO” (Republican-In-Name-Only). It isn’t that he is a “moderate.” And it certainly isn’t that he is “too far to the right,” as those in the Democrat-friendly press maintain.

Though more difficult to accept, the truth is far less dramatic, and much more simple, than any of these fictions.

And the truth is that Romney lost to Obama because he is just another typical Republican.

To see that this is so, we need only ask ourselves: Politically—that is to say, substantively, not stylistically—how is Romney any different from, say, John McCain and George W. Bush? For that matter, with the exception of Ron Paul, how is Romney any different from any of his competitors in the GOP presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012?

The answer is obvious: Romney is not at all significantly different from any of his colleagues.

Not unlike the Bushes and McCains of the world, Romney generously pays lip service to the standard GOP slogan of “limited government” and its ancillaries. And, not unlike the Bushes and McCains, he favors a robust, activist military to reinforce America’s “exceptionalism” around the globe.

In other words, Romney, like his fellow partisans past and present, appears at best incoherent—Big Military, being Big Government, is radically incompatible with “limited government.”

At worst, he seems dishonest, talking one way out of one side of his mouth while talking an entirely different way out of the other.

We now know that the GOP has been hemorrhaging white voters for the last two presidential election cycles. While Romney needed 46 percent more of the Hispanic vote to win, had he garnered only three or four percent more of the white vote and he would’ve won comfortably.

Many of these same whites who are now cold toward the Republican Party weren’t always so. Having experienced what they rightly take as one too many betrayals, they have either sat out the last couple of elections or they have cast protest votes.

Interestingly, the disenchantment with the GOP that has overcome ever-growing numbers of the conservative and libertarian-minded is the mirror image of the disinterest of independents and others in it. For those on the right, Republicans’ rhetoric is fine and good; it’s their Big Government policies that are the problem. For those in the center and on the left, it is primarily Republicans’ rhetoric that frightens them.

Mitt Romney exemplified the contradictions of his party. Thus, their dilemma became his.

Someone once wrote:

"Stolen?
Then you should get right on this and prove it."

First watch 8 minutes 16 seconds of video titled Romney defeated Obama - if not for voter fraud.

Then ... read and think about this. Someone wrote:

"I believe there was voting fraud,
but that it was not the reason Romney lost.
Even without fraud he would still have lost. "

I don't completely agree.

Someone said, "We’re not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested"
Playing the victim? Really?

Yes we had a weak field.
Only about 38 percent of the Republicans supported Romney in the Primary.
So 62 percent voted AGAINST "Establishment Republican" Romney.
Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

Victim? Do you really believe that Romney got ZERO votes in 68 Precincts?

Odd? Romney Got ZERO Votes In 59 Precincts in Philly, and 9 Precincts in Ohio

Do you really believe it was an accident that when some people voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the machine appeared to change it to the Democrat candidate Barack Obama?

I believe there WAS ENOUGH Voter Fraud to throw the 80 Electoral College Votes from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.
I also believe that had Romney SAVAGED Obama, like he SAVAGED the Conservatives that ran against him in the Primary,
Romney would have gotten more votes in the General election.
So yes, it's Romney's fault, but there WAS ENOUGH VOTER FRAUD to steal the election for Obama.

Why Are N.C. Early Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama?

More Electronic Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama: We Looked Into It and Here’s What a Vendor Told Us

Do you really believe that Democrats didn't intentionally vote more than once for Obama?

Voter watchdog says it's uncovered absentee ballot fraud in Florida, New York

Denying being a victim of voter fraud doesn't help.
But getting the criminal enterprise of the Obama Judicial System to prosecute the guilty who stole this election, is a lost cause.
Remember, it doesn't matter who has the votes, it matters who COUNTS the votes.

Obama ordered ACORN Steals Votes For him during presidential run

"It's not the people who vote that count.
It's the people who COUNT the votes."

(Josef Stalin)

URGENT: ELECTION FRAUD VOLUNTEERS NEEDED IN WI, OH, PA, VA, FL

Maker of Unskewed Polls Creates ‘Obama Voter Fraud’ Map — See Which States He Thinks Should’ve Been Romney’s

Why There Won’t Be a Presidential Recount

None Dare Call it Stolen Ohio, the election, and America’s servile press

www.unskewedpolls.com

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Voter Turnout figures for 2012 indicate possible voter suppression and fraud

Vote Scamming in Philadelphia

Vote Scamming in Cleveland

Was Virginia won by vote fraud?

Vote Scamming in Florida

Question: Should President Romney Pardon Treasonist Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro ?

Romney might have won, but with Obama's Criminals running the "Justice Department", they'll never admit Romney won.

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Dean Chambers of UnskewedPolls.com Creates Obama Voter Fraud Map

Photo Credit: Barackofraudo.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

"Where the white votes at?"